The European Court of Human Rights — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are legally binding on all 28 member states of the European Union — has effectively legitimized an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe.

The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus pose a threat to religious peace.

"In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others." – Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that criticism of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech. Pictured: A courtroom of the ECHR in Strasbourg, France. (Image source: Adrian Grycuk/Wikimedia Commons)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that criticism of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, constitutes incitement to hatred and therefore is not protected free speech.

With its unprecedented decision, the Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are legally binding on all 28 member states of the European Union — has effectively legitimized an Islamic blasphemy code in the interests of "preserving religious peace" in Europe.

The case involves Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian woman who in 2011 was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam.

Sabaditsch-Wolff's legal problems began in November 2009, when she presented a three-part seminar about Islam to the Freedom Education Institute, a political academy linked to the Austrian Freedom Party — which today forms part of the Austrian government. A left-leaning weekly magazine, News, planted a journalist in the audience to secretly record the lectures. Lawyers for the publication then handed the transcripts over to the Viennese public prosecutor's office as evidence of hate speech against Islam, according to Section 283 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB).

The offending speech was an offhand comment by Sabaditsch-Wolff that Mohammed was a pedophile because he married his wife Aisha when she was just six or seven years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff's actual words were, "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"

Indeed, most hadiths (collections of traditions containing the words and actions of Mohammed) confirm that Aisha was prepubescent when Mohammed married her and was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Mohammed's actions would today be unlawful in Austria, so Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments were factually, if not politically, correct.

Formal charges against Sabaditsch-Wolff were filed in September 2010 and her bench trial, presided over by one judge and no jury, began that November. On February 15, 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," according to Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

The judge rationalized that Mohammed's sexual contact with nine-year-old Aisha could not be considered pedophilia because Mohammed continued his marriage to Aisha until his death. According to this line of thinking, Mohammed had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to older females because Aisha was 18 years old when Mohammed died.

The judge ordered Sabaditsch-Wolff to pay a fine of €480 ($550) or an alternative sentence of 60 days in prison. Moreover, she was required to pay the costs of the trial.

Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the conviction to the Provincial Appellate Court in Vienna (Oberlandesgericht Wien), but that appeal was rejected on December 20, 2011. A request for a new trial was dismissed by the Austrian Supreme Court on December 11, 2013.

Sabaditsch-Wolff then took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, a supranational court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the Convention.

Relying on Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the Convention, Sabaditsch-Wolff complained that Austrian courts failed to address the substance of her statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, she argued, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate and had not been aimed at defaming Mohammed. Sabaditsch-Wolff also argued that religious groups had to tolerate even severe criticism.

The ECHR ruled that states could restrict the free speech rights enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention if such speech was "likely to incite religious intolerance" and was "likely to disturb the religious peace in their country." The court added:

"The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.

"The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.

"The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

"Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.

"Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10."

The ruling effectively establishes a dangerous legal precedent, one that authorizes European states to curtail the right to free speech if such speech is deemed to be offensive to Muslims and thus pose a threat to religious peace.

The ECHR ruling will be welcomed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries that has long pushed for the European Union to impose limits on free speech when it comes to criticism of Islam.

The OIC has pressed Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of ... religion and belief."

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva on March 24, 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

Former OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu hailed the ECHR's decision, which he said "shows that disrespect, insults and detestable enmities have nothing to do with the freedom of expression or human rights." He added:

"The fight against Islamophobia and our opinions we have been voicing for years have been adopted and declared by the ECHR. This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects."

In a statement, Sabaditsch-Wolff criticized the ruling but held out hope that European publics are waking up to the looming threats to free speech:

"On Thursday, 25 October the ECHR ruled that my conviction by an Austrian court for discussing the marriage between Prophet Mohammed and a six-year-old girl, Aisha, did not infringe my rights of freedom of speech.

"I was not extended the courtesy of being told of this ruling. Like many others, I had to read it in the media.

"The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that right to expression needed to be balanced with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

"In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others.

"This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely.

"I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.

"I am also optimistic. Since giving my seminars in Austria in 2009, we have come a very long way.

"Ten years ago, the press labeled me a 'confused doom-monger' and I was compared to Osama Bin Laden. Now, Islam is being discussed in every sphere of life and people are waking up to the reality of a culture so opposed to our own.

"The cultural and political threat posed by Islam to Western societies is now widely recognized and discussed. It is fair to say European society, as well as the political realm, is undergoing an enlightenment, as it is more awake than ever to the need to defend our own Judeo-Christian culture.

"I believe my seminars in 2009, and subsequent work have contributed to strong push back against an Islamic culture which is so at odds with our own. And note with interest that only one sentence out of 12 hours of seminars on Islam was a prosecutable offense. I assume the remaining content is now officially sanctioned by our Establishment masters.

"It is obvious to me that public education and discourse on the subject of Islam can have a fundamental and far-reaching impact, even if our state or supra-national authorities try to stifle or silence it, in order to appease a culture so foreign to our own.

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar, or to conform to these guidelines. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Please limit comments to 300 words or less. Longer submissions are unlikely to be published.

112 Reader Comments

Colin • Nov 16, 2018 at 10:55

I have no problem with a plural cultural society. I firmly believe that legally held democratic elections decide the public majority opinion. However, I wonder what would be the position of the Austrian government if someone, man or woman, were to stand up in public and make comments that were deemed offensive to Christians? Would that government decide that Christians need to have their religious convictions and beliefs protected?

Reply->

L Jones Colin • Feb 27, 2020 at 10:41

No. Christians wouldn't be protected, because they'd simply be "offended" and wouldn't lash out with violence, as would "the religion of peace".

Reply->

Bill • Nov 16, 2018 at 08:03

Maybe the extreme opponents of Christianity who value the liberty brought to the West via Christianity will be prompted by Miss Wolff's plight, to give Christianity the respect, dignity and loyality necessary to preserve our liberty that is being attacked by Muslims and globalist regressive/progressives.

Reply->

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury • Nov 6, 2018 at 17:34

Another disturbing evidence of Islamization of Europe. Sharia blasphemy laws are in force only in the Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. But this is for the first time, this cruel and inhuman law is finding a home in the West. All of us are aware of the rise of anti-Semitism and radical Islam in Europe. Britain has already become a pseudo Muslim country. Radical Islam and anti-Semitism will ultimately force the European non-Muslims to get converted or become slaves of the Muslim rulers. Sadly, Europeans are yet to realise this plain fact.

Reply->

Richard from New Zealand • Nov 6, 2018 at 15:39

The ECHR has made a judgement of evil. European citizens walk into your local police stations by the dozens, hundreds, and thousands, and criticize Mohammad to resist this.

Reply->

david • Nov 6, 2018 at 14:34

SCANDAL pure Scandal. Europe is done !!!

Reply->

Jeff Goldwater • Nov 6, 2018 at 06:24

The term paedophile is used rather too freely as an incarnation of evil, worthy of hate and derision, and to be fair to Islam and Mohammed, even the Jewish Mishnah, 500-600 years preceding the Koran, declared itself agreeable to the concept of child brides. Modern concepts of what is acceptable ignore historical context. It wasn't until recent decades that people could expect to live beyond their thirties. As for the sensibilities of girls consummating, of course it challenges our minds. But they are contemporary minds.

The wider issue here is whether freedom of speech is being challenged. If the intent is to incite discord, and hatred against Islam, then there is just cause to intervene. A reader asks if it is possible to insult a person that is dead for 1400 years ? Maybe not in person, unless of course you subscribe to the notion that that person still exists in heaven at the side of God. Insult though can be borne by the followers. Which is the case here. The extent though, that these followers could then use this perceived insult to gain wider controls over freedom of speech should be of concern to us all.

A rather good phrase, though rather convoluted, spoken by James Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington is worth thinking about, namely : "You are not going to have a country to make these kind of rules to work..if you haven't got men who haven't learnt to tell human rights from a punch on the nose ". Cause and effect, and extent of controls need concern us all.

Reply->

Marco • Nov 6, 2018 at 06:01

What if someone criticise brutally Jesus Christ? Would this law be considered valid? Or is this law just right for Islam?

It seems that there is sensibility only for Islam! Everyone is concerned with respecting Islam and not insulting Islam but no one cares when people are insulting Christianity! And if a Christian dares to complain, you'll see all the atheists and secularists furiously attacking the Christian and accusing him of asking for censorship. You'll see all "intellectuals" standing up to defend free speech! Why is this not happening now?

I see so much hypocrisy.

On the one hand I agree with the idea that there must be a certain kind of respect for other faith and prophets but, on the other, I see the danger inherent in this law! We may find ourselves in the situation of Pakistan without even realizing it!

Have people forgotten what has happened to Asia Bibi?

Reply->

Carl B • Nov 4, 2018 at 15:39

The ECHR effectively Instituted the Sha'ria principle of 'No criticism of Islam is ever allowed' as a part of our legal system. Congrats.

No non-Muslim without a thorough knowledge of the Islamic doctrine and history should be ever allowed to decide about anything that has anything to do with Islam.

Reply->

Diana Mary Sitek • Nov 4, 2018 at 09:39

How ironic that an institution reflecting a globalist, secular, anti-Judeo-Christian world view allows itself to be the instrument of religious tyranny by a faith that abhors every freedom which Post-Modern society flouts. Is it some kind of Freudian masochism? To deny the Judeo-Christian God in favor of the fear-mongering of Islam's deity can only be understood as a deep-seated guilt and desire for punishment.

Reply->

David • Nov 2, 2018 at 08:17

The OIC has pressed Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of ... religion and belief."

Islam preaches 'intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of all non-muslims'. This is clearly stated in the Koran and Hadith. Let's all play by the same rules!

Reply->

LUKE • Nov 1, 2018 at 19:00

Is it possible to insult someone who died over 1400 years ago?

Reply->

Zenobia van Dongen • Nov 1, 2018 at 14:46

I wonder what the Austrian courts would do if thousands of Austrians marched down the Vienna Ringstrasse bearing banners saying "Mohammed was a pedophile".

Reply->

gerald m serlin • Oct 31, 2018 at 16:48

In a democracy, respectful dialogue is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. If Muslims are so thin skinned that they cannot tolerate freedom of speech, they do not deserve to be a part of a society which dems free speech as a right. The alternative is to make the entire EU a Sharia Law State. That would also end religious intolerance (at least within the EU).

Reply->

Stevenl gerald m serlin • Nov 4, 2018 at 15:36

Leftist theology is slowly destroying "democracy" & Europe. Will Americans have to sacrifice again for the "follies" of Europe?

Reply->

Henry • Oct 31, 2018 at 13:26

The ECHR ruling tells us that this is the future of the Western Europe and probably Canada and Australia as well. It is happening, it gets progressively worse and the sheepish European populace is silently accepting their demise. Just by looking at what has become of Sweden, Britain, Germany and France you may see the direction. The similar blasphemy motion (Motion 103) condemning the so called islamophobia (without providing the definition of "islamophobia") has been issued and approved in Canada. The whole west, while rejecting Christianity, is submitting to the encroaching islam. The future looks indeed gloomy.

Reply->

rolan Henry • Nov 20, 2018 at 13:10

The passivity of the European population is called "Treason of the intelligentsia". Nothing new, though. It happened at the take over of Italy by the fascists, Russia by communists, Germany by Nazis. Countless thousands of lawyers, judges, professors kept their thoughts hidden, as true cowards. The same story is repeated these days. We still talk about democracy - but what we have is ANARCHY. Very relative laws. Thank you intelligentsia!!!

Reply->

John • Oct 31, 2018 at 03:47

The sword cuts both ways ... if the Christians have no right to talk about the dangers of political Islam, neither do the Muslims have the right to talk about Christianity or preaching the killing the Christians and Jews. My Muslim brothers must understand that they do not have the monopoly on violence. This ruling is a disaster for Europe.

Reply->

Oldone John • Nov 2, 2018 at 08:40

That would be fair, and you must realize that "fairness" is a human concept, that has no place in radical Islam...It, according to them, must, only, be "our" way, because any other way, is wrong...Soon "Freedom of Speech" will be just an expression, with absolutely no meaning...The EU will soon have an Army, with an appointed Bureaucrat at it's head...That is frightening...

Reply->

Mark Matthias • Oct 30, 2018 at 16:09

"In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others." – Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff." Well, yes, actually.

Islam is the end times spearhead of Judaeo-Christian persecution which fits perfectly into the end-times biblical forecasts. It's to be expected. Jesus warned us to watch-out many will come in My name -- how many people have claimed to be Jesus, or greater than Jesus? In the last 2000 years we have lost count. How many men have claimed to be Moses, Daniel, David, et al? A handful?

This movement to dominate the world is also a routine ancient effort on the part of men -- no one ever succeeds. Now Islam is having its day, yet the same results will befall it -- now, of course, it is painful to watch and experience because it's the immediacy of pain that acts to make some people lose faith.

People want to live a good life here on earth -- however, the part that is missing for most people is -- how can one make this world a paradise when it's cursed right down to its DNA? This is the thing that eludes people throughout the ages -- there is no way for a finite mind to figure out how to 'fix' and infinite curse which will lead inevitably to infinite destruction, despite man's feeble efforts. One doesn't need to be a bible scholar to
see that the creation is is spiritual, psychological, emotional, physical freefall?

"2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord [a]will come just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then [b]destruction [c]will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief (in the night)" Only a small few will heed such warnings -- as throughout human history, humans never seem to listen until evil is upon us -- then everyone listens...for a minute or two; then the cycle continues.

Reply->

Gail • Oct 30, 2018 at 15:20

The statement "The OIC has pressed Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of ... religion and belief." leads me to believe that now Christians can take Muslims to court for defaming Christianity and Hinduism when they shout out "allahu akbar" which is translated as "allah is greater". Right? What about when they slam Christians for claiming that Jesus is the Son of God and they insist that He is not? What about when they declare that kaffirs (non muslims) can be killed for blasphemy? Will allegations like these hold water in European courts now, finally?

Reply->

Juanita Skelton • Oct 30, 2018 at 13:25

Thank you, Mr. Kern!

In my opinion, the first obvious mistake in any of the rulings, was the thinking of Islam as a religion. It never has been. It never will be. It is an agency of authoritarian control over the lives of Arabs who have always been semi-nomadic freedom seeking humans just like the Puritans, Pilgrims, etc., who came to this country to get as far away from oppression from the dominant religious agencies of authority that threatened their lives and livlihoods. The main difference between these two types of humans is the degree of their individual understanding of FREEDOM.

Islam brings with it, gender bias and no equality between the genders, violence in it's choice of Sharia judgements, and the very ritualized behaviors that allow it to get away with calling itself a religion!

The very FACT that they attack "outsiders" with an impunity, even though they are mainly visitors, temporary workers/aliens, undocumented immigrants, and illegal immigrants, demonstrates this entitled sense of authoritarian agency! Their individual sectarian policies regarding marriage, polygamy, and child marriage has bled into the way they treat the native citizenry of their host countries. Hate? They are the only people showing hate towards a culture they are dependant on!!!

Trying to preserve peace in any country should not come at the expense of any intellectual discussion pertaining to the truth of any organization. This is how the Free World learns, grows, and obtains legitamcy!!!! This is how the human mind processes realities and attempts to protect itself! How dare any court anywhere around the world DENY that the Islamic Prophet was a pedophile? To attempt to hide THAT particular reality is the height of ignorance and a certain type of cowardly self protection! What poor leadership. What profoundly poor judgement!!! Juris prudens? It looks more like ostrich behavior: burying one's head in the sand in a vain attempt to pretend all else is fair and humane in the practice of Islamic teaching and culture!!!

Reply->

Tarek Farag Juanita Skelton • Nov 4, 2018 at 11:26

I agree with most of what you said. I said to the US courts: "The definition of a religion is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Since Moslems consider Islam, a full system to all aspects of life including religious rituals that are indivisible from the state, hence, ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION according to this definition and our Constitution should not protect it as a religion. Islam is categorized as an ideology that could be protected by the freedom of speech, however, Islam is a very violent ideology and our Constitution does not protect violence, but forbids any kind of violence completely. Hence, ISLAM IS CONTRARY TO OUR CONSTITUTION EITHER AS A RELIGION OR AS AN IDEOLOGY".

Reply->

Ruth Broch • Oct 30, 2018 at 09:00

This is completely insane. I never thought I would live to see this sick day. Europe has now, by its own power, turned itself into part of the Caliphate. Western Civilization in Europe is now officially dead.

Reply->

Goh Heung Yong • Oct 30, 2018 at 06:45

This only confirms that Europe is now reverting back to the dark ages before the Renaissance, condemning themselves by refusing to learn from history. They now have incredibly puny minds sitting in their highest courts who can't understand the concept, 'freedom of expression.' They should at least have the integrity to declare that they do not believe in freedom of expression, rather than display at same time their dishonesty and stupidity, by trying to twist language so as to abuse power to silence dissenters. Clearly, history is repeating itself.

Reply->

Paul G • Oct 30, 2018 at 01:08

I wonder how long before the Ottoman Empire expands to engulf Europe? It must just be a matter of a few years as we seem to be time travelling back to the early 20'th century. Germany had two goes at being the head of Europe through World War and learn't the lesson that you can still achieve the same aim by floating the idea of a European Economic Union. They think they are the best marble player around. Turkey is jealous because they can't play in that game of marbles so undermines the game by assisting as many muslims as possible to get to Europe. Erdogan believes he can end up the 'Calif' of Europe eventually and Russia looks on for the time being, not sure if it wants to take over the game just yet or wait and just take all the marbles at the end. Court decisions like this one just help the marble players toward their goal.

Europe can't expect it's overseas allies to come in and save them this time as the end result will be all their own making. The rest of the World has shed enough blood in the fields of Europe to gain it's liberty in the two world wars and what have they done with it? Voluntarily thrown it away in favor of a totalitarian alternative in Islam.

Reply->

Julian Larkin • Oct 29, 2018 at 22:10

I share the outrage expressed by all my fellow commentators on this subject. It seems that the fatuous and alarming ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is actually denying all indigenous non-Moslem Europeans two of the most essential human rights: those of reason and free speech. In so doing, the court has capitulated pusillanimously to pressure from vociferous, intolerant Moslems who expect us to conform to their unenlightened beliefs rather than to respect and assimilate to European culture and values. It seems unthinkable that an unreformed 7th century religion based upon hatred of all other religions and their adherents, as well as a hatred of non-believers, could by default lead to a tyrannical caliphate and the end of European civilisation, but the insidious process is now well established and it behoves all of us to whom it is anathema to be vociferous in defence of our freedom.

Reply->

Kay Nauslar Julian Larkin • Nov 1, 2018 at 00:00

Would this also apply to the Catholic Church? Can we go longer question the behavior of so many priests?

Reply->

Cliff • Oct 29, 2018 at 19:42

I am wondering whether some readers understand that the UK's departure from the EU does not in itself release the UK from the judgments of the European Human Rights Court, however much one may wish that in relation to this case. Leaving the EU will make it possible to leave the Council of Europe, but that would be a separate process and unfortunately, I think, be unlikely to command the level of support among electors that Brexit did in the 2016 referendum, and there would almost certainly be even less support than there is for Brexit in the British parliament in the forseeable future.

Reply->

C.Poole • Oct 29, 2018 at 17:10

"but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship."

Since Muhammad is human and not a god, surely there is no reason why he should be worthy of worship.

Reply->

Patrick Cain C.Poole • Nov 4, 2018 at 06:53

You are quite right. Amongst several other absurdities in this judgment, the finding that Muslims worship Mohammed is wrong. Muslims worship Allah, only, and Mohammed is Allah's prophet. The notion that a bloke who grooms a child for 3 years, commencing when she is 6 years of age, and forces her to have sex with him when she is 9 years old (she cannot possibly consent), is not a pedophile, is plainly absurd. This decision was made by cowards and they need to know that they will be the first at the end of a rope should the extreme elements of the "religion" they pretend to respect gets into power in Europe.

Reply->

Ron Thompson • Oct 29, 2018 at 17:05

The court labors painfully to try and draw a distinction between permissible speech and speech that would disturb the rights of others (Muslims) to have "their religious feelings protected".

The court would have been far more honest to deal forthrightly with two related questions.

First, what exactly is "Islamophobia"? Or, put another way, is it EVER possible to criticize anything about Islam, however factually based, without incurring the charge of "Islamophobia"?

The court becomes ridiculous in trying to distinguish what would and would not produce "justified indignation" in believers in a religion the members of the court do not themselves follow.

The court has shamefully failed to defend the free speech values of the civilization of which, nominally if not substantively, it is a part.

And the defendant is right, they have gone far to surrendering to the blasphemy law values of a culture and civilization which knows no freedom of religion for non-Muslims.

Reply->

Digger • Oct 29, 2018 at 16:31

The Munich Accord revisited...only this time they are selling out the futures of forty-seven countries instead of just Czechoslovakia's (Czech Republic now)

Reply->

Bill Houston • Oct 29, 2018 at 16:14

The European frog is about to be boiled - and eaten.

Reply->

Harvey L • Oct 29, 2018 at 16:08

As I have stated previously, the sooner the UK gets out of the self-made hell-hole called the EU the better with or without a trade deal it makes no difference lets just shut the door while we still can.

Reply->

Patricia Walker • Oct 29, 2018 at 15:59

Can we guess where this is going, considering no such laws have been established to protect the founders/prophets of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and all other religions/beliefs? Will they protect Hitler's name next?

Reply->

b.a. freeman Patricia Walker • Oct 30, 2018 at 18:24

excellent point, Patricia! might i suggest that a church somewhere in the EU file a court case to prevent andres serrano, american artist ("piss christ") from ever setting foot in the EU because of blasphemy? maybe they could also file another case to have chris ofili, british artist ("the holy virgin mary") deported from the EU.

once the ECHR turned down such petitions, it would be *REALLY* hard for the nazis to explain enforcing only muslim blasphemy law.

Reply->

jule • Oct 29, 2018 at 15:52

The Law should back banning of teaching, preaching Qur'an. 1) it is not Religion but a Warlord Culture with the goal of stealing Abraham as a base power to conquer the world. It's from 600AD but spread as word for TODAY. 2) It is BIGOTED and is causing anti-Semitic reaction worldwide. 3. It is not under the protection of Freedom. It is inciting & abusing. Inciting abusing bigotry are not part of FREEDOM or Religion. 4. The same ban must be on Nazigroups, KKKlan and white Supremacists. Groups that want to DESTROY what we stand for cannot be allowed....Why have a world war and then invite Nazigroups to our home? Did we not think it would spread? Do we not know history? People have been wrongly brainwashed. Why call for human rights but allow KKKlan, or Islam. Stop telling me abuse and bigotry are OK under a free country when they oppose freedom. Stop telling me Islam is a religion. I read the Qur'an, which I found was just a GANG, a Warlord Manual for conquest, Control from 600AD. Its like the Mafia. Please do not tell me the Mafia has lobbies and is considered legit or OK. Stop PRETENDING because it puts our lives in danger and that is not freedom.

Reply->

myshlev • Oct 29, 2018 at 15:13

This ruling by the ECHR, and the earlier rulings by the Austrian courts, are very alarming. They show quite clearly that the appeasers in the European elite are now continuing apace in their zeal to turn Europe's non-Muslim citizens into Dhimmis. Sharia blasphemy laws are now being effectively introduced. It appears that Mrs. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is among the first "infidel" Europeans to be forced to pay the Jizya. The European public needs to awaken to the dangers facing them.

Reply->

Ray Styles • Oct 29, 2018 at 14:59

The civilized world has been at War with Muslims for a 1000 years and no end in sight. Are Muslims under the same laws as this women when they refer to Christians? I doubt it. Muslims will always be Christian's Enemy. Europe is quickly sliding into the point of No Return.

Reply->

Fred Bloggs • Oct 29, 2018 at 13:48

There is a petition to sign :

Please see:

https://www.citizengo.org/en/node/37129

Reply->

Dajjal Fred Bloggs • Oct 29, 2018 at 19:51

Thanks for the link!!! Signed, shared and intend to blog it!!! We petition the court for an en banc rehearing!!! We have no alternative!!!

Reply->

Julian Larkin Fred Bloggs • Oct 29, 2018 at 21:51

Thank you for the link Fred. I've signed the petition and posted it on FB.

Julian Larkin

Reply->

Mak • Oct 29, 2018 at 13:07

In light of the ECHR's ruling, I wonder how would they view this statement from a judge of a trial in the UK?

"You knew shortly after you began an intimate relationship with her that she was just 12. You didn't become disgusted with yourself after finding out. You didn't mind. That is why you have to be classified as a paedophile. You groomed her. You were a grown man who caused a little girl to believe she was your girlfriend."

What would that make a grown man who caused an even younger little girl to believe she was his wife?

Reply->

Linda Harrington-Parker • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:53

So the reason given is to preserve religious peace, and the way to do that is to appease Islam? Well as someone once said, "Good men rot in filthy jails, while those who cried, "Appease, Appease, Appease, are hung by those they tried to please!"

Reply->

Stefan • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:51

To learn who lures over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

"Voltaire"

Reply->

JAMES C LEWIS • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:30

If Americans vote Democrats, who are now pushing socialism and multiculturalism and Islamic rights, we will surely face the same judicial "reasoning". To ignore the overt hatred of Islam towards non-Muslims and especially their ongoing genocide of Christians is self-suicide. European governments like the EU have become pro-Islam, which has promised to take over the entire world and is ACTIVELY engaged in doing just that. If they ACHIEVE that goal, we will all have to live under the totalitarian insanity called Islam.

Reply->

b.a. freeman JAMES C LEWIS • Oct 30, 2018 at 19:15

well, maybe, JAMES. over half of american voters chose ms. clinton in 2016; the only thing that saved us from the final victory of the hard-core left was the electoral college. that might not happen again, especially since mid-term elections have been reverses for the party of the president for quite some time now.

i fear that the left will re-gain power and continue to cover for their proxy army of pious muslims. pious muslims will arrive on our shores in ever growing numbers, just as in eurabia, and make ever more attacks on innocents. the police, FBI, and other authorities may be able to stop some attacks, but not all of them, and the number of deaths will continue to climb until day-to-day life becomes impossible. at that point, the leftists who rule us will relent and "save" us by declaring martial law to solve the problem. unfortunately for us, the only problem they will solve will be their own problem of how to seize power, and the republic will end, to be replaced by the people's republic of the USSA.

that would be bad enough, but after they declare martial law and seize power, the left will actually want the attacks to stop, because they will have attained their goal. they know that pious muslims *won't* stop, though, so they'll use force on a troubled muslim neighborhood or 2 - perhaps hammtramckistan in MI, or milwaukeestan in WI - in the usual leftist manner, by surrounding the neighborhood(s) with the military, and ordering them to kill every human being found within them.

now, we are fortunate in this country to have a citizen army, especially in this particular circumstance. i don't believe that there are very many folks in the military who would willingly follow such depraved orders, but once a few recalcitrant officers and/or non-coms were summarily shot without the benefit of a court martial, replacements might have different thoughts on the matter. if we are lucky, the word of such efforts might leak to pious muslims, such as keith ellison, or perhaps others; the left has been incredibly stupid to allow the pious among its proxies to be included within the government, where they may have access to such information, which those like mr. ellison would immediately release to the ummah in the u.s. and i'm betting that the majority of the ummah, being MINOs, in that they don't necessarily go along with the jihad thing (or at least don't want to actively participate), would see the utility in becoming pious, given the sudden change in government and the turn of their allies, the left. i suspect that our second civil war would then start, and be between the hard-core left and the u.s. ummah.

since the ummah in the u.s. numbers several million people, and most of them would probably turn pious, i suspect that the left would have its work cut out for it in any case. when U add in the reluctance of the majority of the military to go along with mass murder, i believe that the left will be slow off the mark. hopefully, there will be more than one in the u.s. military who recognizes that the government is now run by nazis, and rational western people, whose culture is judeo-christian, will open up a third front in the civil war and *crush* the nazis and the pious muslims.

most of that is speculation, of course, but i'm fairly certain about the intentions of the left. most leftists in the u.s. - i would guess about 98% or more of them - are simply fellow-travelers, because they don't really understand what the hard left believes, and don't recognize the goals of the left. the left twists judeo-christian morality, which almost all of us still have, to a greater or lesser degree, and uses the twisted morality to advance its destruction of society. were these nominal leftists to actually get a glimpse of where the left is really headed, they would run screaming from the room - as they should. to illustrate this, i suggest that U go to ericallenbell.com, or perhaps to
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/121726/high-price-telling-truth-about-islam-eric-allen-bell,where mr. bell, an independent filmmaker, tells the story of his confrontation with leftist bigotry and hatred. it is possible to reach folks; one must simply strive to be polite, in spite of unwarranted attacks by the folks U are trying to reach. since the hard-core left has controlled education in the u.s. for *DECADES*, almost all adults, possibly excepting some old farts like me (but not me, because i used to be a liberal until about 35 years ago), are leftist, and were not taught, by either their parents or the schools, to practice civil discourse, and will thus probably attack U, as they were taught. bear up under the attacks, so that they cannot stomp off muttering about rude racists or some such bulls**t; they might actually decide to check out islam for themselves, as mr. bell did (and as i did, only a few years ago).

the bottom line is that a civil war is almost inevitable. the left does not want one; they want to seize power painlessly, and lie to the public until they have cemented their control and rebellion is virtually impossible. they do, however, want to stop their proxy army once they have won, and i see that as initiating the civil war. we need to be ready, and we need every ally we can reach. once a nominal leftist actually learns of the audacity of the lies told by the hard-core left, he is not likely to take *any* of their other beliefs at face value. it is *definitely* worthwhile being polite to wake people up.

Reply->

Ron • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:29

With Europe facing a growing population of unassimilated, devout Muslims and fearing the serious property damage and loss of life that Muslims could inflict upon society if they believe their religion has been insulted, the European Court of Human Rights was blackmailed into ruling in favor of Sharia blasphemy law in order to maintain the peace within its member nations. This act of surrendering free speech in favor of maintaining public order will prove to be one of the final nails in the coffin of Western European civilization. It's now just a matter of time before Islamists will be able to bury the corpse of western civilization and establish their caliphate in Europe.

Reply->

Eamonn Gavin • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:20

The SUICIDE of Western Civilization - and Europe leads the way. Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off the cliff we go ...............

Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.

Reply->

TDG • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:15

Bye bye EU.

Reply->

Bisley • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:02

The ECHR, like most courts, is more of a political institution than a legal one. It job is much more about affirming EU policies as law than anything to do with protecting people's rights, or forcing the EU and its constituent governments to confine their actions to what they are permitted to do. In this particular case, they are simply using their power to forbid free (and accurate) speech that conflicts with the EU policy of importing millions of Muslims. It is now officially a crime to criticize Islam.

The ECHR and the European Convention on Human Rights both need to be abolished. Rights that are subject to being ignored, or eliminated for whatever the EU, or a member government thinks to be in its interest, are not rights at all. This is all a fraud perpetrated on the public, and in reality, simply another tool that can be used to deny the rights of the people. Free speech requires that people be allowed to say or print whatever they like, regardless of who may be offended by it -- there is no free speech anywhere in the EU, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Reply->

David • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:58

The Human Rights Act is clearly being abused.

Reply->

Nicholas Varias • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:53

It appears that Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff fell into the tarp set by OIC, who used the left wing magazine News to find hate speech evidence against her. This is a valuable lesson in the future for avoiding such traps by focusing on irrefutable facts that prove that Islam is incompatible with Judo-Christian values and therefore shall not be accepted as a legitimate religion/ideology in western democracies.

Reply->

Emil Friedman • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:46

What I don't understand is how supposedly intelligent people like the ECHR (and many others throughout the world) can behave so stupidly. What am I missing?

Reply->

b.a. freeman Emil Friedman • Oct 30, 2018 at 19:36

Emil, the left does not teach the students attending its indoctrination centers critical thinking; as a result, folks resort to seeing what other people think. they make an effort to ensure that these "other people" are rational and reputable, but since the left has run education in eurabia since the late 19th century, there is nobody alive there who was taught to think critically. those who have discovered the duplicity of the left publicize it (now at their own risk), and there are those who attended church and synagogue schools, and *do* know and use critical thinking, but for the most part, eurabians look to the "smart people" to see what to do and think. and the left peoples virtually all universities with hard-core leftist thought leaders, who *always* provide cover for pious muslims.

and why would they do that? aren't hard-core leftists also atheists who *hate* religion of any kind? indeed they are, but they are also utilitarians who are willing to use any tool at hand to seize power. the thought leaders realized that pious muslims *always* accompany the ummah when it performs hijrah to dar al-harb, so all they must do is belittle and berate those who try to draw attention to the danger, and encourage more muslim immigration (legal or not, since laws don't really mean anything to the left). in other words, pious muslims are serving as a proxy army attacking and destroying society in the EU, and now the power of the State is behind islamic blasphemy law in the EU. once things get so bad that the average person cannot carry out the chores of day-to-day life, the left (always in power in eurabia) will declare martial law, and after roundups and "re-education" of potential opponents (re-education being a bullet to the back of the head), they will declare a people's republic.

the hard left almost always fails when it tries to attain power legitimately; it succeeded - barely - when it seized power in russia in 1917, and in almost every case since, that is the way it acceded to power. pious muslims are just about perfect proxy troops, because they are not organized, they *want* to die murdering innocents, and there are literally no ties between the hard left and pious muslims. of course, the left are bringing pious muslims into various governments as political allies, which is a huge mistake, as it will severely complicate the mass murder of all muslims after martial law, and then the people's republic, are declared, but for now, we need only be concerned with stopping the destruction of civilization by the left at the hands of pious muslims. i'm not holding my breath.

Reply->

David • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:35

Islam clearly poses a threat to religious peace. The Koran is blasphemous against Christianity and Judaism. Surely "Kill the infidel wherever you find him" is damning enough evidence?

Reply->

Art • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:12

This ruling also encourages extremist and aggressive religious positions and groups. The more extreme and hostile they are the greater their protections and the greater their imposition of their beliefs on others.

Reply->

Sylwia Art • Oct 29, 2018 at 14:59

Well done Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff. If you want to have a real true opinion about some Muslims I can be a witness for you. I am living in Turkey. I have a Turkish husband. I know he loves me and he cares about me here very well. But his family didn't accept me coz I am white, I am immigrant, I am Polish, I am Christian, his sister even calls me Satan.

Would anyone in the European Parliament like to know my history? I am living here 8 years, a lot of bad situations, i was scary in the beginning. Mother of my husband wanted to kill me. She abused me many times. But my husband is helping me. I wanted to leave Turkey but I cannot. We do not have the financial means.

I submitted documents for citizenship and I have been waiting for two years without success. I know that another woman, who is older than her husband of 26 years old, is Jewish, has accepted Islam, got citizenship after a year! Is not that racism? Is this not Christianophobia? Is this not Xenophobia?

Life in Turkey is not easy, there is no work here, and no man can even dream of a social advance. There is no help from the state for those in need.I am slowly exhausted.

Reply->

b.a. freeman Sylwia • Oct 30, 2018 at 19:44

Sylwia, i and most others here can do nothing for U. our elected "leaders" ignore us, and when we try to draw attention to the poisonous cult of islam, they attack us personally, and sometimes legally. i have no money to spare (it is all committed for some time to come), or i would try to help U myself. can U and your husband reach a polish consulate there in turkey? they might be able to help. also, if U can reach an american consulate, U might be able to request asylum. i will be praying for the 2 of U, and also that your husband's family comes to Jesus, or at least abandons the pirate cult.

Reply->

af • Oct 29, 2018 at 10:33

So what's new? Europe continues to go into the sewer. They are way past the so-called slippery slope. Will the last person out of Europe kindly turn out the lights? The idiots who run Europe believe that arse-kissing will buy them peace and harmony with the invading hordes. One would think, by this time, that they'd know better. Nope.

Reply->

Zulugroove • Oct 29, 2018 at 10:30

Obviously the European Court of Human Rights does not understand that appeasement will never work ... they are obviously naive to history & its cowardice, in relation to inclusion of an ideology that actively promotes hate, murder, and the eradication of everything not Muslim !! What a pathetic excuse of governance. They are killing ... if not have effectively killed Europe.!!!!

Reply->

Michael Dable • Oct 29, 2018 at 10:27

If one was needed - yet one more reason why we in the UK should leave those jerks in the EU!

Reply->

Anna Knowles Michael Dable • Oct 30, 2018 at 00:04

Sadly, leaving the EU will not free us from the jurisdiction of the ECHR. The EU judicial authority is the European Court of Justice (the ECJ), a corrupt organisation like the rest of the EU, and it is this the UK will be free of once we leave the EU.

The ECHR, on the other hand, is quite separate from the EU. It was set up after World War II with the laudable intention of preventing horrors like the Holocaust ever occurring again by asserting the human rights of threatened and abused minorities. Unfortunately, the ECHR has become corrupt too, with a number of perverse judgements such as this latest nonsense, and has become a threat to civilised values instead of the guardian of them.

Reply->

David Anna Knowles • Oct 30, 2018 at 06:20

The ECHR has been swamped by the OIC, as evidenced by recent rulings.

Reply->

Leonardus Cozijn • Oct 29, 2018 at 10:26

This law is simply meant to block any criticism of Islam.

Reply->

J. Maccabee Leonardus Cozijn • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:10

Islam intends, by its terms, the subjugation and elimination of all others. Islamofascism is political/religious system, a thing that should be restricted to the autocratic, intolerant hell-holes where it prevails in the Middle East, Asia and Western Pacific Ocean--and nowhere else. Quarantine of these places is appropriate, except for those emigrants who want to leave Islam and peacefully and tolerantly assimilate into other nations and cultures.

Reply->

Maha • Oct 29, 2018 at 10:23

It would appear only one religion is now protected by the Human Rights Council. Everyone else, whether secular, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist must bow to Sharia.

When non-Muslim children or their wives are assaulted and raped, that must be understood to be religious expression and protected as well.

When nightclubs or stadiums are bombed, that's just religious expression, and can be expected, because some "bigot" had a bad word to say about Islam.

When some bearded cleric in a nightshirt spews hate against the west to a reporter, he is just professing his religion and cannot be questioned, since doing so shows lack of respect.

The pot is warming to the boil that will enslave Europe while useful idiots tell everyone the water is fine.

Reply->

David Fanshaw • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:51

This law won't quell tensions, it will make them far, far worse. It's going to really stir things up. I can't see people sitting back and taking this - once mainstream media finally condescend to print news of it (if they do at all).

Reply->

Erica Ling • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:19

Well done Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff, for championing our rights to free speech. Christian sects have been freely vilified and marginalised for decades, Jews are daily subject to blood libel. But of course we don't have the global organisations, backed up by terrorism, to defend our sensibilities. Even the present pope supports Islam over his church. A fine today, the death sentence tomorrow ? Ooops, is it now verboten to mention the inconvenient little truth about executions for blasphemy, being LGBTQ, a raped woman. How far down the road to submission are our governments prepared to travel?

Reply->

Douglas Brunelle • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:18

This is an obvious capitulation and sacrifice of Western Enlightenment values on the altar of political correctness. What about the over 100 verses of violence in the Qur'an exhorting Islam's followers to jihad against the unbeliever? Seems to me that the violence displayed by Islam, contained in the Qur'an and Hadiths, constitutes far more egregious "hate speech" than mere criticism of Islam. Stop it, Europeans. Just STOP IT.

Reply->

David Douglas Brunelle • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:42

Spot on Douglas. Take the fight back to the ECHR! 57 countries in the IOC! That is a powerful lobby, but surely not a majority in the ECHR.

Reply->

Adrianne Smyth • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:13

Frightening. But that, of course, is what they intend.

Reply->

Michelle Wayne • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:01

Makes me think that's how Nazism started in Germany, slowly making laws for people to be criminally charged for speaking out in defence of their country. So now it's Islam, same thinking, same ideas and same influence of international law courts in Europe. I can't help but imagine how imams are rubbing they hands and smiling in joy of bringing Europe back to the Middle Ages. After all this is what immigration is all about in Europe. Sad that it has come to be that the people are being punished trying to keep their thousands-years-old culture.

Reply->

Norbert Kausen • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:54

So the EU has become full blown Muslim, and the European people have no rights. It is no wonder people are upset and it is no wonder Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Britain will likely leave the EU.

Reply->

Peter Terry • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:52

The problem is not just ECHR. The Austrian judiciary did not support the right of free speech of an Austrian citizen over the claims of the hurt feelings of the complainant. What I say to Austria is that you have lost a tourist. I once loved Austria, but I won't support a country with a government that does not protect the right to freedom of speech. And I suspect there are lots of other principled Americans, Italians, Czechs, Poles, even Germans who will also boycott Austria until this is remedied.

Reply->

Anna Knowles • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:46

This ruling should terrify anyone who believes in freedom of speech and freedom of thought. The 'offender' is said to have 'gone beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate.'

The 'offender' merely described a 53 year old man who had sexual intercourse with a nine year old child as a 'paedophile'. What other name can, or should, be applied to this activity? Yet this woman is to be punished for speaking the truth. The evidence for Muhammed's behaviour is in Islam's own 'holy' texts. Since when has speaking the truth been forbidden by law? Since Muslims invaded our continent and made a systematic attack on our democratic values, our freedom of expression, which necessarily involves the risk that someone, somewhere will be offended, and our tradition of spirited debate.

The reason given for this suppression of free speech is that it might 'put at risk religious peace'. What the court is really saying is that Muslims do not rebut arguments or criticism with counter-arguments, as civilised people do, but feel free to resort to physical violence, including murder, if they feel 'offended' - and the courts have allowed themselves to be cowed into submission to these threats of violence. It is a shameful surrender to barbarism and an insupportable attempt to undermine the values of our civilisation and must be resisted.

Meanwhile, of course, every foul insult is directed at our culture; the internet is awash with Islamic hatred of the west; anti-Semitic poison pours from their lips and we cower and accept it.

Reply->

Michael Anna Knowles • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:47

It is not that she merely described a 53 year old man who had sexual intercourse with a nine year old child as a 'paedophile'. The court expressly recognised that the Austrian court found that by making the statements the applicant had suggested that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship.

There is no longer any right in Europe to deny that Muhammad is worthy of religious respect as a true messenger of God, and no legally legitimate grounds for denying the exclusive jurisdiction of the shari'a courts over the entire continent of Europe, should Muslims demand it as the price of religious peace.

Reply->

Michael • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:39

What this means now is that it is not protected speech for a person to deny that human rights are subject to the dictates of shari'a. Islam has now been adopted as the official religion of the Council of Europe.

Reply->

UNCLE VLADDI • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:31

Let's have a look at what they imply: "The Strasbourg, France-based court found that her statements describing Muhammad as a pedophile "had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims" and "amounted to a generalization without factual basis." So they're deliberately lying about official Islamic facts.

"Such comments, the court said, are not protected by the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights."

So: It is illegal to report the truth about criminals if it might upset other criminals.

"The court asserted her statements "were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages."" One must remain "neutral" towards, (i.e: not oppose) all crimes.

"The European court classified the woman's "impugned" statements as "an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.""

In asserting Muhammad was a Prophet of religious Peace, they Submit to islam.

Conclusion: The European Court of Human Rights only supports criminals' rights.

Reply->

Dajjal UNCLE VLADDI • Oct 29, 2018 at 19:29

"Religious peace: Muslims are in a state of permanent war with all who do not worship Allah perfectly by their standards. Koran 8.39, 9.29 & 9.123, Reliance o9.8 & 9.9, Hedaya 2.139...145.

Righteous indignation : Islamic law calls for the execution of anyone insulting Moe: Reliance o8.0....7, Ash-Shifa on and about page 717.

2.286 is one of the most popular superogatory slat, should we not be indignant over that? Should Muslims not be prosecuted for it and for reciting Bukhari 4.52.177 in their kutbah?

False Facts : muttawir ahadith state Aisha's age as 6 years at marriage and 9 at consummation. Documentation is available, search: "Scribd + Kab Ashraf + Aisha's Age". Moe lusted after an infant crawling before him, Guillaume: "The Life of Muhammad", pg. 311.

Incitement of hatred: If knowledge of the fatal facts of Islam causes people to hate Muslims, it stands as proof of the fact that Islam and Muslims are, and of right, must be objects of hatred.

Bottom line: we must be free to discuss threats to our culture, life & liberty. Islam & Muslims are threats because of the doctrines which impose the obligation of Jihad.

Reply->

David Fanshaw • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:30

At first I thought this might be an early April fools joke or so-called fake news but no this is deadly serious. How on earth has this been allowed to slip through without citizens being consulted? How has it not been reported in the media? So now we have the ludicrous situation where we face arrest and imprisonment for criticising Islam in any way, yet it is ok for Imams to say the most awful things about Christianity and Christians (not to mention Jews too). We lost Christian blasphemy some time ago. Now we have Sharia blasphemy put in its place instead.

The lunatics most certainly are in charge of the asylum. Do we need any further proof Europe is being prepared for an Islamic future? What next total Sharia Law, floggings, etc? Utter, utter madness. If EU nations have any sense they will refuse to enact this nonsense in their lands.

Reply->

UNCLE VLADDI • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:28

This ILLEGAL and wholly subjectivist "HURT FEELINGS" nonsense has got to stop!

Offense can only be taken, never given! If someone says something mean and untrue about you, you either consider the source and scornfully laugh it off, file a lawsuit for defamation, (slander and libel are forms of fraud) or a crime report for inciting violence, if they went that far.

But these recent fake judge-made "laws" are really only onus-reversing crimes, as in:

"You have to prove you DIDN'T hurt my feelings, or else you owe me money! Nyah!"

And there's no such thing as a state of permanent, ongoing "emotional distress" that isn't deliberately and willfully, habitually obsessed about – because our emotions are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the static past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): static fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending!

Further, libertine "liberal" criminals have to resort to whining about their hurt feewings, simply because they don't have any actual facts to justify their many crime excuses!

So, being angry at ("hateful" towards) criminals is now the most vile sin, while pitying ("tolerating") them all as "fellow victims," is now to be deemed the highest moral virtue!

So much so, that the only advice we hear from "our" hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:

"Anyone who doesn't automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!"

Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a "hateful" crime itself!

So any and all legislators, judges, and educators who put criminals' hurt feelings above facts should be fired and JAILED.

And that includes using the words "Respect!" and "Dignity!"

Objectifying people as "victims!" is what really "disrespects their dignity!"

Any and all "laws" criminalizing hurt feelings should be repealed and their originators fired and JAILED, too!

Because all subjectivist "laws" are really adversarial crimes, seeking to use fraudulent slander to extort and enslave others. Fraud, slander, extortion and slavery (aka "Political Correctness") are already crimes.

Who complains about hurt feelings (aka defending their "dignity") anyway?! ONLY criminals!

They always feel hurt and left out when others try and succeed and they don't, so they feel jealous and entitled to demand an equality of outcome and permanent rights (like, to your stuff) without any concomitant corollary responsibilities (like to earn or otherwise have to pay for it) over an equality of opportunity! i.e: to extort a right to remain irresponsibly wrong – to be able to angrily, "hatefully" attack others first while demanding a false right to be pities for their chosen stance!

Which is why they invented the whole nonsensical and emotive concept of "HATE CRIMES!" – because, in making "hate" into a crime, they extortively try to make it "illegal" for their potential victims to hate their crimes!

Any law-abiding person who gets robbed or extorted doesn't feel "sad" or "uncomfortable" about it, they feel righteously ANGRY! So their constant demands for pity is one really good way to tell an extortive victimology-spewing criminal from a real victim of same!

Reply->

paddy fields • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:21

So does this set the precedent for any 'religion' to do exactly the same thing regarding abuse of their founder/reader? Step forward Joe Smith, Ronnie Hubbard, Aleister Crowley and Anton LeVey supporters.

Reply->

Bob Thebuilder paddy fields • Oct 29, 2018 at 11:26

Only if the supporters of those other cults were to bear an obligation to kill and maim their antagonists.

Reply->

Hans Lembøl • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:18

This is a very sad day for Europe. Now, you are not allowed to call the prophet of islam what you would call everybody else who had sex with a nine-year old girl. What's next?

Well you don't need much guessing. Next thing is that you are not allowed to say anything against islam or in any way to criticize islam. In France and Britain it is already not allowed to say that islamic terrorism has a connection to islam.

The Europeans are going to be silenced. Not, notably, by islamists, but by European judges and European politicians acting as useful idiots.

Reply->

Chris • Oct 29, 2018 at 08:16

So Alex Jones was right. How Ironic.

Reply->

Irene • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:55

Would it be possible to file similar charges to expressions like "Allah is greater" - which clearly is a provocative and insulting declaration on everyone who is not a Muslim?

The same would go for offensive talking about Jews and Holocaust, and European non-muslim females that some Islamists treat as if they are of little value.

There should now be a score of charges of muslim insulting of western values... said anywhere, including their houses of worship.

Reply->

Obadiah • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:55

Where has the maxim gone "I hate what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it"?

Offence is in the mind of the offended, when I speak or write I cannot take into account all of the offences that might occur, since I have no idea who will hear or read what I discuss, otherwise I must remain silent. Progress is only made through discussion and some discussions can be tough!

If someone does not like what I say they should stop listening. If they do not like what I write, don't read it.

As with all blasphemy accusations, an all powerful or wise being, should not need the help of a mere human as a defender.

Reply->

Laurence Flynn • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:51

The persecution of European Christians, by the ECHR. How did we come to this and what does it mean for the future?

Reply->

Erica Ling Laurence Flynn • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:36

Dhimmitude. Just as non-Muslims enjoyed while under Muslim rule in Muslim lands. Get used to the first hand experience of African Americans under Reconstruction. Stripped of our rights, unrepresented, barely tolerated at best. THIS cowardice is why most of us voted for Brexit.

Reply->

Paul • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:39

In effect what the court is saying is that EVERY LIVING BREATHING PERSON MUST bow to the teachings of the Koran - has it gone stark staring raving MAD? This court should be inundated with the millions of Europeans who fearlessly declare and believe that the Muslim Mohammed was, without doubt, a paedophile. I for one will NEVER know-tow to ANY SO-CALLED 'Law' which forbids ME to criticise ANY nonsense spouted by ANY religion, or in the case of Islam, EVIL CULT. CHARGE ME?

Reply->

Dorothy Davies Paul • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:43

Agreed. We must all continue to speak freely and correctly, and state our feelings to our MPs not just in private.

Reply->

Peter D Gardner • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:38

Green light for Sharia in Europe. Nobody will be able to argue against it on grounds of morals, freedom of religion other than Islam, or basic repugnance of Islamic doctrine, or Islamic example.

Reply->

David Fanshaw Peter D Gardner • Oct 29, 2018 at 09:45

I fear you are absolutely right. This new law effectively means debate will be closed down. Under it how could you not appear "offensive" if you gave reasons for opposing further encroachment of Islam? Now this has been introduced watch out for Sharia being given powers matching our existing laws. If I had wanted to live in a country with a powerful Islamic presence I would have gone and lived there. Why is all this being imposed upon us? Why?

Reply->

Steve • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:34

The further Europe goes into blindly accepting Islam, the worse it will get. As more and more begin to awake to the dangers of this, the more they will be able to push back. Not to do so will imperil Europe.

Reply->

Georges Slowik • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:30

Time to arrest those judges and throw them in the slammer for ignoring two major rules:1) Separation of church and state2) Freedom of speech.

Reply->

Phillip Rosslee Georges Slowik • Nov 2, 2018 at 10:12

I think extreme violence against Islam and its Muslim followers is just around the corner and with decisions like this it will only come quicker.

Reply->

Hamish MacDonald • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:17

Very relevant and timely article, which shows the vigilance of Gatestone Institute. This an extremely dangerous precedent, as indicated, because it gives leverage to lies used to further Islam (Taqiyya).

Reply->

Dorothy Davies • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:04

Facts about Islam and the life of its leader Mohammed should be circulated as widely as possible in order to help this push-back by civilisation, otherwise we will all return to 700 A.D. or earlier. Islam spread itself through the Middle East and North Africa by means of violent attacks on unarmed communities, threats and intimidation. Everyone should read about the fall of Constantinople, a horrific story. Europe was saved when Vienna was attacked and successfully defended with the help of the Hungarians. They also attacked through Spain but were driven back by armed force. They will have to be repelled by other methods now.

Reply->

Hamish MacDonald Dorothy Davies • Nov 2, 2018 at 02:44

The way out for Europe and any country must be to recognise their own SELF-WORTH. Self-esteem is the first stage in recovery. It is obvious from the Muslim rallies (led by Anjem Choudary sometimes) to 1) denigrate the police force, and then 2) denigrate the UK., even though they are recipients of the bonhomie of the UK.

So it is very much at this stage of emotional blackmail, with an unhealthy dose of terrorism.

Hijra shows various stages and verbal abuse is a major tactic.

So to contain this, the country of origin must claim its own self-worth.

Reply->

Jeff Page • Oct 29, 2018 at 07:01

If this insanity showed by the ECHR and leaders in many European countries continues, then the war carried by Islam to the West will be won without so much as a murmur! Many leaders and people in authority are scared to death of being called "Islamophobe or Racist" and so they close down any speech or opposition of any kind towards Islam. This so-called "religion of peace" is responsible for upheaval across the known world. Wherever there are Muslims, there is death threats, destruction, chaos, clashes between different sects of Islam as well as between different religions. What more evidence do these fools in power need to see the error of their ways? Why do they care little for the welfare of their own people and allow a completely alien culture to dictate terms of how we live, who we can criticise etc? It's almost as though these leaders want to completely change the demographics of their own countries. They are quite prepared to betray their people and country just to stay in power a little longer. They seem to want an Islamic world and they are doing their best to force the people to accept Islam as the one true path. It is far from that, it is a death cult and an abomination to civilised society. It needs to be banned, it is not a religion, whatever way you look at it. We in Europe have to force elections and rid ourselves of the people betraying us. It will soon be in the US.

Reply->

laudie Sneddon • Oct 29, 2018 at 06:46

Are Christians going to get the same privileges when Our Lady and Our Lord are blasphemed in disgusting ways.

Reply->

Antonie de Vry • Oct 29, 2018 at 06:36

So......The European Court of Human Rights is simply an extension of the EU.....and we should be concerned as our rights and freedoms are eroded bit by bit.....

Reply->

Michael Waugh • Oct 29, 2018 at 06:30

I cannot believe this nonsense. We have free speech in the UK and the invasion of a lot of muslims into our country changes nothing, except for extra security we have to pay for. Their religion is man made more recently than Christianity. If these people do not like our attitude to whatever they believe in then they should return to their own countries. EU laws do reinforce our decision to get out of this madhouse.

Reply->

Bisley Michael Waugh • Oct 29, 2018 at 12:17

You'd better stop and take another look. There is no longer free speech in the UK, and hasn't been for quite some time. With the "hate speech" laws, political correctness, government censorship, police searching the internet for people with the courage to say the truth, so they can arrest them -- free speech in Britain is dead. Try publicly denouncing Islam, or government immigration policy, in the UK, and see where it gets you -- maybe in the same cell with Tommy Robinson, if you're lucky.

Reply->

Adrianne Smyth Michael Waugh • Oct 29, 2018 at 14:36

We no longer have freedom of speech in the UK. Why do you think that hundreds of police officers in London have been assigned to searching for "hate speech" on the internet and other media?

Hate speech is one of the items on the top of Mrs May's agenda, unlike the prosecution of the Muslim rape gangs about which we have yet to hear her say one single word.

Mrs May delighted in increasing the numbers of Sharia courts during her six year (and utterly useless) rule as Home Secretary. We now have many areas where the Muslim immigrants cannot and do not need to speak one word of English and believe they are living in a Muslim country. They have mosques, their own courts, they import their wives and husbands from Pakistan and have more or less declared some areas no go for the indigenous population.

And Mrs May presides very happily over it all.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgeHR4NzYI

Reply->

Pierre Pendre • Oct 29, 2018 at 06:29

Freedom of religious expression means that neither government nor individuals can do anything to prevent a believer freely practicing his religion. It does not mean showing respect for religion itself which is a courtesy and under no circumstances a requirement on anyone's part.

Atheists think there is no God - whom I've capitalised out of resect - and that religious belief is a form of superstition. It is a denial of their freedom of expression to forbid them to criticise any religion, still less one privileged religion as the ECHR has ruled.

The ECHR has accorded Islam this privilege not for purely religious reasons but as a matter of public order. It fears violence from Muslim extremists if non-Muslims are allowed to say what they like about the religion regardless of the truth of what is said. This in itself is a cowardly retreat - disguised as pragmatism - from the European values the court was created to uphold.

Europe is a Christian continent in terms of history and culture which recognises nonetheless that I have the liberty to abuse Jesus Christ in the most derogatory terms imaginable as some people do. At the same time, I am forbidden to criticise an alien religion recently implanted here because doing so might offend the subjective perceptions of some of its adherents.

This is not just divisive and discriminatory but incoherent and extremely bad law because it further expands subjectivity as a basis for prosecution, fitting law to feelings rather than fact.

If I were a militant Muslim, I'd be on the look out from today to bring a prosecution in a country like the UK, private if necessary, against someone who had offended Islam citing the ECHR ruling as justification and establishing its application to the UK. Since the UK is a signatory to the ECHR, I don't see how such a prosecution could fail.

If I were a militant Christian - there must be some left - I would bring a similar prosecution against someone who insulted Christ to establish whether the ECHR ruling applied equally to all religions or whether it gave special discriminatory protection to Islam alone.

The relationship of observant Muslims to their religion is much more personally intimate than Christianity has been to European Christians at any time since the separation of church and state became the basis of modern society. The ECHR ruling goes directly to the heart of the ultimate irreconcilability between an immutable 7th century religion and our secular society. One or other must give. It seems to be the latter.

Reply->

Bryan Wilson • Oct 29, 2018 at 05:40

This is yet another and if not greater reason for BREXIT. I cannot believe that in the wake of all the Christian persecutions taking place in the majority of Muslim based countries around the world; and this includes murders, tortures and rapes, not just words of offense, that the Court of Human Rights would come down with such support of this. The world has indeed gone crazy. The problem is that this will not become public knowledge, the normal person in the street will never be told about this, as the leftist controlled media will not headline this news and that in itself is criminal in my opinion. I suppose what we will hear next is the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury coming out in support of this. May the Lord forgive us for what we do.

Reply->

Helen Stengel • Oct 29, 2018 at 05:31

Take note, those who want Britain to remain in the EU.

Reply->

Bryan Wilson Helen Stengel • Oct 30, 2018 at 06:05

They don't realize Helen, they are completely oblivious. They sit in their comfortable little bubbles believing the media hype that this is all far right propaganda and that the moderate majority will prevail. But as Brigitte Gabriel rightly said, history shows us that this is not the case and one only need look at the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, to see that radicalism does prevail and the moderate majority are irrelevant. These people need to wake up and with the speed that this is all taking place, with the full support of all those rogues in the EU I may add, they don't have long to do so. What happened to our Christian faith, it was that which brought Europe together during two world wars. Alarmingly, we no longer have that to unite us.

Reply->

Yvonne Helen Stengel • Oct 30, 2018 at 14:32

The only way to combat this is to send Arabic speakers who are not Muslims into Mosques and to secretly tape some of the hate speech by some Imams and then take it to the Courts, they dare not treat it differently and they will then have to prosecute a Muslim for hate speech against a Christian. Use their own stupidity against them. This is so appalling and makes me more certain that I did the right thing in voting out of the E.U. Europe is in jeopardy due to its shit scared politicians.I have no issues with moderate Muslims who themselves are threatened by the extreme elements. Why are they pandering to this nonsense do they not know about those killed in Africa and Pakistan because they have been accused of blasphemy against the prophet. Do they want to give a green light to such killings in Europe??

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.